Authorship and Ownership in Scientific Research: Who Controls Your Intellectual Property?

1. Authorship and Ownership in Scientific Research:Who Controls Your Intellectual Property? Dr. William Ullman College of Marine and Earth Studies University of Delaware

2. Who owns the data that you produce as a graduate student? Can you take the original data notebooks, computer files, and other material with you when you leave? Can you use the data generated as a graduate student without your advisor’s permission? Is your data really your data? Questions for Graduate Students

3. NSF Policy “Financial records, supporting documents, statistical, and other records pertinent to this award shall be retained by the awardee for a period of three years from the submission of the final reports.” “Other records” include notebooks and computer files “Awardee” is the institution Is your data really your data?

4. UD Policy “The Patent and Trademark Amendments of 1980 known as the Bayh-Dole Act…provides that the contractor (University of Delaware) may retain full title, right, and interest made under contract with the government, with certain exceptions for unusual circumstances.” Applies to university faculty, staff, and graduate students. Is your data really your data? UD Policy and Procedures Manual Policy 6.6: Inventions, Discoveries, and Patents

5. Who owns the data and results that you produce as a graduate student? Can you take the original data notebooks, computer files, and other material with you when you leave? Can you use the data generated as a graduate student without your advisor’s permission? Is your data really your data? Questions for Graduate Students

6. You don’t own your data! Your advisor doesn’t own your data! Your rights to use data generated as a student are not well defined. If you have questions, discuss these with your advisor (in advance is better). While you are at it, discuss authorship practices with your advisor. Authorship is probably more important than ownership to you as a scientific professional! Ownership vs Authorship

7. Authorship Issues Who should be an author? What should be the order of authorship? Why are these important?

8. Qualifications for Authorship Authorship credit should be based on substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions i, ii, and iii. Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship. All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed. Proposed UD Policy

9. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged. The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the co-authors. Authors should be prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed. Based on International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, http://www.icmje.org/

10. The Order of Authors The first author is that person who contributed most to the work, including writing of the manuscript (an author is a person who writes). The sequence of author listing is determined by the relative contributions to the work. In the instance that equal credit is due, this should be footnoted (by asterisk) and it is suggested that authors be listed alphabetically (authors may wish to note this policy on their CVs). Decisions about authors and the order in which their names appear should be discussed as early as possible, even at the outset. Decisions about authors and the order in which their names appear should be made by group consensus, and under the guidance of the lead investigator(s). Proposed UD Policy Based on editorial by D. Riesenberg and G. Lundberg, JAMA 1990; 264:1857

11. Determining who should be a co-author of the paper Best answered before the work even begins. Certainly before writing begins. First author does the most writing.

12. Who deserves to be a co-author? • Actual hands-on work, but not necessarily all technical help. For example, person doing nutrient analyses for a fee would not be a co-author. • Anyone contributing to the development of experimental design and hypotheses.

13. Kirchman’s Rules* • Being first author counts the most. • Value of authorship (other than first) declines exponentially with number of authors. • C.V. with two first-authored papers is better than a C.V. with 6 papers but where the person is the nth author. • If you are the first author, don't be stingy about adding an additional co-author. • If you are not the first author, don't be shy about questioning the addition of another co-author. *From Dr. David L. Kirchman, Maxwell P. and Mildred H. Harrington Professor of Marine Studies

14. Questions?

16. First: Main person, wrote the paper (first draft) Second: Main technical help Third, etc.: Small contributions Last: Most senior person, wrote the proposal. Often listed as the corresponding author. Order of authorship contains some information (in some fields)

17. Kirchman, D.L.,S. Graham, D. Reish, and R. Mitchell. 1982. Bacteria induce settlement and metamorphosis of Janua(Dexiospira) brasiliensis. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 56: 153-163. Kirchman: Designed the experiment and wrote the paper Graham: A tech who did the work Reish: Sent the animals to MA from CA Mitchell: Advisor, Editor. Originated The Idea

18. Nature’s policy: Authors are strongly encouraged to include a statement in the Acknowledgements to specify the actual contribution of each coauthor. Active foundering of a continental arc root beneath the southern Sierra Nevada in California GEORGE ZANDT, HERSH GILBERT, THOMAS J. OWENS, MIHAI DUCEA, JASON SALEEBY & CRAIG H. JONES Acknowledgements.G.Z. thanks G. Gehrels, P. Kapp and B. Hacker for comments on preliminary interpretations and manuscripts. Authors' contributions: G.Z.,H.G.,T.J.O. and C.H.J. cooperated on the seismology analysis and interpretation. M.D. and J.S. provided the geologic and tectonic context. C.H.J. led the PASSCAL deployment to collect the data. G.Z. wrote the Article with contributions from all the authors.

19. Under the supervision of Prof. Leader, three graduate students are working on related projects for their MS degrees, in two cases, and PhD degree, in the remaining case. Most of the laboratory work is done by the students as Prof. Leader is busy with administrative responsibilities including writing new grant proposals. After two years, Prof. Leader decides to write a review article based on the work of these students. Although the work emphasizes the contributions of the two MS students who have completed their research and left the University, Prof. Leader and the PhD student are writing the paper together without additional input from the two MS students. • What should the order of authorship be and why? • Who decides, in the end, the order of authorship? • Would it make any difference if the two masters students were undergraduate interns?

20. Student Lucy completes a masters thesis funded by a grant to her advisor, Prof. Goosey, and graduates from Big U. She completes her thesis and, based on the quality of this work and her recommendations from Prof. Goosey, quickly finds a job and leaves the Big U. Prof. Goosey contacts Lucy a number of times about writing up her work for publication in the Journal of Prestigious Results. Initially, she responds that she is working on the paper, but after one year, she indicates that she doesn’t have time to write up the paper and no longer has interest in doing so. Prof. Goosey realizes that in order to get future funding he will need to write up Lucy’s work and does so.

21. Should Lucy be rewarded with authorship? • Who should be the first author? • How should Prof. Goosey respond to future requests for letters of recommendation for Lucy?

22. Prof. Almighty submits a proposal renewal based on work done by MS student Downtrodden on a previous grant. After the grant proposal is submitted, Downtrodden, now a PhD student, gets a copy of the proposal and finds that substantial portions of his MS thesis appear verbatim in the proposal. Although his MS thesis is well-cited in the proposal, he is upset that there is no indication that the text was initially written by him. • Does Downtrodden have reason to be upset? • How should have Prof. Almighty acknowledged the Downtrodden’s contributions to the proposal? • Should Downtrodden complain? If so, to whom?

23. Professor Wanda Wannabe and her graduate students, Nat Naïve, Ingrid Innocent, and Oliver Oblivious went on a cruise where each of them did various analyses, but the most novel part of the work was done by Oliver as part of his Ph.D. work. The project, including the student stipends, is supported by a grant written by Professor Wannabe. The cruise went extremely well, so well that Professor Wannabe wants to write up the results for publication as soon as possible—in fact, she wants to submit the paper to Science first and then Nature. Is it okay for her to be the first author of the Science/Nature submissions?

24. Not unexpectedly, both Science and Nature reject the paper—in fact, it wasn’t even sent out for review. So, now Professor Wannabe wants to re-write the paper for the Journal of Delaware Science and Home Economics. She wants to remain the first author, even though Oliver Oblivious also wants to be first. • Does the professor have any right to be first author of the paper? • Who should be first author of this paper?

25. Ownership is only important in cases of new inventions (patents). Usually more important to institution than to scientists. Authorship is important to scientists Authorship rules are often complex and variable Talk about authorship/coauthorship with all collaborators, early in collaborations. Ownership and Authorship